Morgan 4-4

Morgan 4-4

Buy by power, fuelling, and rear brakes — not by the badge on the gearbox. Every Morgan 4-4 in this catalogue is a Roadster from the single 1 generation (from 1936, no end year in the data). Every listed version starts in 1962, is a 5-speed Manual, and is RWD. The names in the database are only 1.6 MT and 1.8 MT. Those two labels cover eight cars.

Every Morgan 4-4 in this catalogue is a Roadster from the single 1 generation (from 1936, no end year in the data). Every listed version starts in 1962, is a 5-speed Manual, and is RWD. The names in the database are only 1.6 MT and 1.8 MT. Those two labels cover eight cars. The spread is 72 hp to 125 hp (53 hp, about 74% more at the top than at the bottom). If you pick the first 1.6 MT you see, you can land on the weakest carburetor car or on a 110 hp multi-point car with a measured 8 s to 100 km/h. The rest of this page is the arithmetic that separates them.

Specs: eight versions, two names

Use the horsepower figure next to the name. That is how the catalogue keeps two 1.6 MT cars that both say 96 hp from collapsing into one, and how the two 1.8 MT cars stay apart.

Boost is not measured on any of the eight. Engine position is Front, longitudinal on all eight. Fuel grade 95 is measured only on 1.6 MT 110 hp, 1.8 MT 125 hp, and 1.8 MT 111 hp.

Engine: power per litre and what the extra displacement buys

Displacement barely moves on the 1.6-litre cars: 1596, 1597, or 1599 cc (3 cc between the 110 hp and 72 hp engines). The 1.8-litre pair is 1796 cc (1.8 MT 125 hp) and 1798 cc (1.8 MT 111 hp) — 2 cc apart, 200 cc above the 1596 cc unit. That extra ~200 cc is 12.5% more capacity than 1596 cc.

Specific output (hp per litre, displacement in litres = cc / 1000):

• 1.8 MT 125 hp: 125 / 1.796 ≈ 69.6 hp/L
• 1.6 MT 110 hp: 110 / 1.596 ≈ 68.9 hp/L
• 1.6 MT 101 hp: 101 / 1.597 ≈ 63.2 hp/L
• 1.8 MT 111 hp: 111 / 1.798 ≈ 61.7 hp/L
• 1.6 MT 96 hp (both): 96 / 1.599 ≈ 60.0 hp/L
• 1.6 MT 90 hp: 90 / 1.599 ≈ 56.3 hp/L
• 1.6 MT 72 hp: 72 / 1.599 ≈ 45.0 hp/L

The 125 hp 1.8 MT and the 110 hp 1.6 MT are within 0.7 hp/L of each other. The 125 hp car is not a more highly stressed 1.6; it is almost the same specific output on 200 cc more. The 111 hp 1.8 MT sits below the 101 hp 1.6 MT on hp/L (61.7 vs 63.2). Buying 1.8 litres does not automatically buy the densest engine.

Torque is measured on three cars only: 150 Nm at 4000 rpm on 1.6 MT 110 hp; 160 Nm at 4500 rpm on both 1.8 MT cars. The 1.8-litre pair has 10 Nm more (about 7%) and that peak is 500 rpm later. On 1.8 MT 125 hp vs 1.8 MT 111 hp, torque is the same 160 Nm at the same 4500 rpm; the 14 hp gap is not a torque gap in this data.

Peak power rpm is not comparable across the set: 1.6 MT 110 hp is listed at 600 rpm; 1.6 MT 90 hp at 6500 rpm; both 1.8 MT cars at 5750 rpm; the other four versions: not measured.

Valves per cylinder split the 1.6-litre field: 4 valves on 1.6 MT 110 hp and 1.6 MT 101 hp; 2 valves on 1.6 MT 96 hp (the 2-valve listing) and 1.6 MT 72 hp; not measured on 1.6 MT 90 hp and on the other 1.6 MT 96 hp. 1.8 MT 125 hp is 4 valves; 1.8 MT 111 hp is not measured.

Compression ratio is measured once: 11 on 1.6 MT 110 hp, with bore × stroke 79 × 81.4. Every other version: not measured.

Carburetor vs multi-point: the real 1.6 MT split

Fuelling is the cleanest binary in the 1.6-litre group.

Distributed injection (multi-point): 1.6 MT 110 hp, 1.6 MT 101 hp, 1.8 MT 125 hp, 1.8 MT 111 hp.

Carburetor: 1.6 MT 90 hp (90 hp), 1.6 MT 72 hp (72 hp).

Not measured: both 1.6 MT 96 hp cars.

The carburetor pair is also the bottom of the power ladder. 1.6 MT 110 hp has 38 hp more than 1.6 MT 72 hp (about 53% more) and 20 hp more than 1.6 MT 90 hp (about 22% more). Between the two carburetor cars the gap is 18 hp (90 − 72), which is 25% more power on the 90 hp car at the same 1599 cc.

Euro 4 is measured only on 1.6 MT 110 hp and 1.8 MT 111 hp. The other six: not measured. If emissions class is a buying filter, those two are the only versions where the catalogue records a class.

Performance and mpg: what is measured, what is not

0–100 km/h is 8 s on three cars: 1.6 MT 110 hp, 1.8 MT 125 hp, 1.8 MT 111 hp. Top speed is 170 km/h on the same three. On 1.6 MT 101 hp, 90 hp, both 96 hp cars, and 72 hp: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured. Do not treat a blank as “this car has no acceleration figure in real life”; in this catalogue it is simply not measured.

The 8 s / 170 km/h trio does not line up with horsepower order. 1.8 MT 125 hp, 1.8 MT 111 hp, and 1.6 MT 110 hp share the same sprint and the same top speed in the data, despite 125 − 110 = 15 hp (about 14%) between the strongest and the 110 hp 1.6. On these numbers, the extra 15 hp does not buy a shorter 0–100 or a higher listed top speed.

Fuel consumption is measured on two cars only, and the figures are identical: 1.6 MT 110 hp and 1.8 MT 111 hp both list 11.4 city / 6.3 highway / 8.2 combined. The 200 cc and 1 hp between them (111 vs 110) do not show up in mpg in this dataset. On 1.6 MT 101, 90, both 96 hp, 1.8 MT 125 hp, and 1.6 MT 72 hp: city, highway, and combined are all not measured. 1.8 MT 125 hp therefore has a measured 8 s and 170 km/h but no measured consumption; you cannot rank it on economy from this catalogue.

Dimensions, weight, tank

Kerb weight is 868 kg on the same three cars that have 0–100 figures: 1.6 MT 110 hp, 1.8 MT 125 hp, 1.8 MT 111 hp. Gross weight is not measured on any version. Ground clearance is 100 mm on all eight. Tank is 50 L on all eight. Wheel size is not measured on any version.

Power-to-weight where both numbers exist:

• 1.8 MT 125 hp: 868 / 125 ≈ 6.94 kg/hp
• 1.8 MT 111 hp: 868 / 111 ≈ 7.82 kg/hp
• 1.6 MT 110 hp: 868 / 110 ≈ 7.89 kg/hp

The 125 hp car is 0.95 kg/hp lighter per horsepower than the 110 hp 1.6 (7.89 − 6.94). That is the only place in the data where the extra displacement buys a denser power-to-weight figure at the same 868 kg. The 111 hp 1.8 and the 110 hp 1.6 are within 0.07 kg/hp — for weight-per-horsepower they are the same car.

On the five versions with kerb weight not measured, you cannot compute kg/hp. Ground clearance and tank do not change your choice: 100 mm and 50 L everywhere.

Chassis: disc vs drum, same springs

Front suspension is Independent, spring on all eight. Rear is Dependent, leaf spring on all eight. Front brakes are Disc on all eight (the English label in the data is Disc). Rear brakes split:

Disc rear: 1.6 MT 110 hp, 1.6 MT 101 hp, 1.6 MT 90 hp, 1.8 MT 125 hp, 1.8 MT 111 hp.

Drum rear: 1.6 MT 96 hp (valves not measured), 1.6 MT 96 hp (2 valves/cyl), 1.6 MT 72 hp.

The three drum-rear cars are also the three weakest 1.6s that are not the 90 hp carburetor car (the 90 hp 1.6 MT is Carburetor and Disc rear). If you want four-wheel Disc, drop both 96 hp 1.6 MT cars and the 72 hp 1.6 MT.

Generations: nothing to “step up” to

There is 1 generation, Roadster, 8 versions. No second generation in the data, so there is no later generation that added automatic, AWD, or a different body. Modification start dates are 1962-01-01 on all eight; stop is not measured on all eight. Choosing “a newer generation” is not an option here. The choice is only which of the eight 1962-on versions matches the numbers you care about.

Which version to choose

If you want the highest listed power and the lowest kg/hp: 1.8 MT 125 hp. 125 hp, 160 Nm, 1796 cc, 4 valves, Distributed injection (multi-point), 868 kg, 8 s, 170 km/h, Disc/Disc, fuel 95. Consumption not measured. Versus 1.6 MT 72 hp it is 53 hp more. Versus 1.6 MT 110 hp it is 15 hp more and 0.95 kg/hp better at the same 868 kg, with the same 8 s and 170 km/h.

If you want the 1.6-litre car with the most complete measured sheet: 1.6 MT 110 hp. 110 hp, 82 kW, 150 Nm at 4000 rpm, 1596 cc, compression 11, 79 × 81.4, 4 valves, multi-point, 95, Euro 4, 11.4 / 6.3 / 8.2, 868 kg, 8 s, 170 km/h, Disc/Disc. It is 1 hp/L off the 125 hp 1.8 (68.9 vs 69.6) and shares the same sprint and top speed. Versus 1.6 MT 101 hp it is 9 hp more (about 9%) at 1 cc less (1596 vs 1597).

If you want 1.8 litres but the version that also has mpg and Euro 4: 1.8 MT 111 hp. 111 hp, 83 kW (same kW figure as the 125 hp car in this data), 160 Nm at 4500 rpm, 1798 cc, multi-point, 95, Euro 4, 11.4 / 6.3 / 8.2, 868 kg, 8 s, 170 km/h, Disc/Disc. Versus 1.8 MT 125 hp you give up 14 hp and 2 cc of displacement (1798 vs 1796 is 2 cc more on the weaker car) and you gain the only 1.8-litre consumption and eco-class figures in the set. Versus 1.6 MT 110 hp you gain 1 hp and 202 cc and the same mpg numbers; kg/hp is 7.82 vs 7.89.

If you want multi-point 1.6 without paying the 110 hp spec: 1.6 MT 101 hp. 101 hp, 75 kW, 1597 cc, 4 valves, multi-point, Disc/Disc. Torque, 0–100, top speed, mpg, Euro 4, kerb weight, compression, fuel grade: not measured. It sits 9 hp below the 110 hp 1.6 MT and 11 hp above the 90 hp carburetor car.

If you will accept a carburetor and still want Disc rear: 1.6 MT 90 hp. 90 hp at 6500 rpm, 67 kW, 1599 cc, Carburetor, Disc/Disc. Torque, 0–100, top speed, mpg, weight: not measured. It is 18 hp above 1.6 MT 72 hp at the same 1599 cc.

Avoid if you want four-wheel Disc or the strongest 1.6: both 1.6 MT 96 hp cars (72 kW, 1599 cc, Drum rear; one with 2 valves per cylinder, one with valves not measured) and 1.6 MT 72 hp (54 kW, 1599 cc, 2 valves, Carburetor, Drum rear). The 72 hp car is 38 hp below the 110 hp 1.6 MT and 53 hp below the 125 hp 1.8 MT. The two 96 hp cars are identical on every measured number except valves per cylinder (2 vs not measured); there is no hp, Nm, or 0–100 gap between them in this data, so the 2-valve listing is the only documented difference.

Do not choose by generation, gearbox, drive, tank, or clearance. All eight are 1 generation, Manual 5, RWD, 50 L, 100 mm. The decision is 72 / 90 / 96 / 101 / 110 hp on 1.6 MT versus 111 / 125 hp on 1.8 MT, then carburetor versus multi-point, then Drum versus Disc at the rear.